Religious
Freedom in Focus is a periodic email update about
the Civil Rights Division's religious liberty and religious discrimination
cases. The Civil Rights Division has placed a
priority on these cases. Through vigorous enforcement of:

Federal laws against
arson and vandalism of houses of worship and bias crimes against people
because of their faith; and

The Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA);

and through participation
as intervenor and friend-of-the-court in cases involving the denial of
equal treatment based on religion, the Civil Rights Division is working
to protect the right of people of all faiths to participate fully in
public life.

The Civil Rights Division filed a religious discrimination suit
against the State of Ohio and its employee union on August 26,
charging that employees are being forced to support the union
over their religious objections.

Under the collective bargaining agreement between the Ohio Civil
Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO and
the state, employees must either join the union or pay the union
a representation service fee. The agreement contains a provision
accommodating the conscientious objections of some employees
who have religious objections to supporting the union. Employees
who are members of churches that have “historically held
conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting” unions
are permitted to pay an amount equal to the union service fee
to a charity mutually agreeable to the employee and the union.
However, Ohio and the union have refused to extend this exemption
to state employees with sincere religious beliefs against supporting
the union, but who do not belong to such churches with histories
of opposition to supporting unions.

An employee of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Glen
Greenwood, is a Presbyterian who has a religious objection to
supporting the union on the grounds that the union and its affiliates
support abortion and same-sex marriage. He sought to direct his
union fees to a mutually agreeable charity, but his claim was
rejected by the Ohio State Employment Relations Board on the
grounds that the Presbyterian Church did not have a historically
held position against joining or supporting unions, and that
his religious objection was personal in nature. He then filed
a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which
unsuccessfully tried to mediate the dispute. The EEOC then referred
the case to the Civil Rights Division.

The
Civil Rights Division complaint alleges that the
State of Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency and the Ohio Department of Administrative
Services discriminated against Mr. Greenwood on the
basis of religion in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
by failing to give him the same treatment for his
sincerely held religious beliefs as is accorded members
of churches that historically have opposed association
with unions. The complaint also alleges that the
state defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice
of discrimination. The complaint thus seeks relief
not only for Mr. Greenwood, but for all other employees
with sincere religious beliefs against joining or
supporting the union. The union and the Ohio State
Employment Relations Board were joined in the suit
as indispensable parties. The suit seeks a court
order requiring that all those with sincere religious
objections to supporting the union be given the opportunity
to direct their fees to charity.

Acting
Assistant Attorney General Bradley J. Schlozman stated: “The
union-fee system in Ohio discriminates in favor of
members of those churches with long histories of
opposing unions, and against individuals who have
religious objections to supporting a union that are
just as sincere. Such discrimination is forbidden
by the civil rights laws and must end.”

Division Defends Student’s Right to Observe
Religious Holidays

On August 10, the Civil Rights Division filed a brief arguing
that an Indiana eighth-grader’s right
to free exercise of religion was violated when his public
middle school refused to grant him more than one day
of excused absences per year for religious holidays.

The Tri-Creek School district permits only one day of
excused absence per year for religious holidays. However, the
school does permit more than one excused absence for illness,
death in the family, attendance at the State Fair, service as
a page at the State Legislature, and in other cases in the discretion
of the principal. When the eighth grader, who along with his
family adheres to the tenets of the United Church of God, missed
nine days of school last year to attend obligatory holiday services,
he was given eight unexcused absences. As a result, he was required
to sign an attendance contract stating that he had excessive
absenteeism and could face expulsion, and his mother was threatened
with child-neglect charges. Some of his teachers refused to allow
him to make up classwork and gave him zeroes for the missed work.

In response to a written complaint from the boy’s mother,
the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation of
the Tri-Creek School District in November 2004. The boy’s
mother subsequently filed a private lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. As the
2005-2006 school year approached, she filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction with the court, and the United States
filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of her position.

The
United States’ brief argues that the school’s
failure to give the boy excused absences violates his
free exercise rights under the First Amendment. His Free
Exercise Clause rights are being violated for two reasons.
First, the school grants excused absences for various
secular reasons, such as death in the family or attendance
at civic activities. The school has shown no compelling
reason why it cannot make the same accommodation of religious
absences that it does with these other types of absences.
By providing excused absences for various other personal
reasons, the brief argues, “the school policy contemplates
that any missed school work can be made up and that the
educational mission of the District will not be undermined
in any significant way by the absences. The same is true
with religious absences.”

Second,
the brief argues that this case falls within the well-established
doctrine of First Amendment law that free exercise
of religion coupled with parents’ rights to direct
the religious upbringing of their children requires
the government to show an especially strong reason before
it can interfere with those rights. For example, in
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court held that “the
fundamental interest of parents . . . to guide the
religious future and education of their children” required
state compulsory education to give way to Amish parents’ desire
to provide their children vocational education in community
with other Amish children after the eighth grade. Similarly,
here the plaintiff seeks to ensure that her son is
able to attend the religious holidays that are integral
to her family’s faith. But in contrast to Yoder,
where the parents wanted to pull their children out of
school entirely, she seeks only to remove her son from
school for a small number of days each year. The brief
thus contends that: “The District’s attendance
policy and actions have violated her right to direct the
religious upbringing and education of [her son] by denying
her the irreplaceable opportunity to guide her son’s
study and experience of church doctrine and practice.”

Guilty Plea in Washington Cross Burning

Collin Patrick Sargent pleaded guilty on July 19, 2005 to participating
in a cross-burning on the front lawn of an Iranian-American family's
home in Edmonds, Washington in July 2004. Sargent pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18
U.S.C. 241. He admitted that along with
several others he helped construct a five-foot tall cross, drove
it to the family’s home, and ignited it. Sentencing is
scheduled for October 7, 2005.

The trial of two alleged co-conspirators, Jason Russel and Joseph
Linn, is scheduled for October 3. The cases of two juveniles
allegedly involved in the incident were referred to local prosecutors.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Justice Department
has investigated more than 675 bias crimes against Muslim, Sikhs,
and people of Middle-Eastern and South-Asia descent. Federal
charges have been brought in 26 cases against 34 defendants,
yielding the conviction of 24 defendants to date. Twelve federal
prosecutions are currently pending trial or sentencing. State
and local authorities have brought more than 150 criminal prosecutions,
with the help of the Department of Justice in many cases. More
information on the Civil Rights Division’s efforts to combat
bias crimes and discrimination against these communities may
be found at the Division’s Initiative
to Combat Post-9/11 Discriminatory Backlash web page.